RSS
Home
Time to Unite The Right, Not Split
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Will the Right allow itself to fall victim to one of Saul Alinsky's tactics being used by the Left of "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it?"
A controversy that has been brewing for months illustrates the state of polarization within the Republican party. Those in the grassroots movement for limited government, individual liberty, lower taxes, and free markets are putting their support behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd congressional district's special election. Hoffman is running as against both the Democratic candidate and a Republican candidate, Debe Scozzafava who is very liberal on both economic and social issues.
The debate over this race is about whether Hoffman will split the vote and cause the Democrat to win by default or if that even matters if the Republican is a carbon copy of the Democrat.
Polls Show Party Out of Touch
In an article earlier this week, Gene Healy of the Cato Institute highlighted some findings from a recent focus group study on the conservative grassroots by Democracy Corps, founded by Clinton vets James Carville and Stanley Greenberg. According to their data, "the conservatives they talked with, who worry about overweening government, represent almost one in five voters in the electorate." If that's true, then the conservative grassroots currently adds up to around 25-30 million voters, or nearly half the number that voted for John McCain in the last presidential election.
At the same time, the latest poll of Republican voters by Rasmussen Reports finds that, "Just 15% of Republicans who plan to vote in 2012 state primaries say the party’s representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Republican values."
These polls and focus groups signal that the Republican Party needs to listen very closely to and embrace the grassroots base rather than move more to the center. However, this is not a signal to the grassroots that it can abandon the GOP and go it alone in a new party or an existing third party on a national scale.
As discontent with the Obama Administration and the far left wing of the Democrats in Congress continues to grow, there may come a tipping point where those that hold to the principles of limited government could make up a majority of registered Republican voters. At that point, and not before, the movement will need to decide if it has the critical mass necessary to beat the Democratic Party in a majority of races across the country without the Republican Party apparatus. That would mean that the GOP would be effectively defunct and replaced by a new party. We are definitely not in that situation now!
The real danger is that if the party splits now, it will surely be a blessing to the Left, and they will have succeeded in their Saul Alinsky tactics of polarizing, splitting and completely neutralizing the opposition.
Demand Constituent Satisfaction
The grassroots needs to use its influence to grow its power, demand change within the party structure, and actually show how it will help defeat the liberal candidates in 2010 and 2012 races. The GOP also must move to satisfy the demands of the grassroots since it is now clear that it is a large part, if not the majority, of its constituency. However, if the grassroots says its going to leave the party because they’re not satisfied with the party, there is no incentive for change.
Take the example of being a customer who has been coming to a restaurant regularly for years. If service has been declining and many of your favorite menu items have been replaced with bland dishes that taste the same as the restaurant next door, what should you do?
You can just stay home and eat, but then you don't get any benefits that you get from going to a restaurant.
You could tell the restaurant, "Your food and service stink. I'm starting my own restaurant!" The manager will say, "Good luck. You'll probably fail and you'll be back." They will it least think that you can’t be pleased, not understand how to satisfy you, and write you of as a customer that can’t be won back.
Or you can be persistent and keep explaining to them, "You've always been my favorite place to eat and I really want to keep being a customer, but things have been going in the wrong direction. Have you brought in more customers by being more like the competition? If you bring back favorite dishes, try some completely new spices and sauces that make you different, and beef up the service again, then I will be loyal and come in more than ever." If the restaurant hears that from many regulars, then it will listen. It will listen or eventually go out of business.
Duvenger's Law
There are flaws in both a two-party and a multi-party system, but I believe the flaws are greater in a mutli-party system. The electoral system that supports multi-parties produces an inherently unstable government as well as a less representative government because of the compromises needed to form a governing coalition between parties.
I observed this first hand when living in Europe in a country that had a proportional represtative electoral system.
If we want viable third parties in the United States, then our electoral system must change from a plurality system to a proportional representative system. That's not going to happen because its too disruptive to the whole structure and stability of the Republic. It's also not desirable since the coalitions to form governments get formed post election, when governing should be taking place, rather than pre-election (leading into and just after the primary process).
In political science this phenomenon is referred to as Duvenger's Law. Maurice Duverger was a French sociologist who observed in the 1950s and 1960s the effect of electoral systems in forming two major parties or supporting multi-parties in a country. A proportional representation system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster multi-party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in a two-party system.
Under the plurality system of elections in the U.S., a third party can only be viable if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, and effectively seal the demise of the pre-existing major party. The last example from U.S. history of this is when the political situation just before the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party.
Our plurality election system actually has the effect of delaying the emergence of a new political force, but accelerates the elimination of a weakening force. In this way, it promotes the stability of the country's political system and ushers in change in the political parties only when the plurality of voters are truly ready for change, rather than giving way to the shifting whims of the loudest voices.
Vote Your Conscience
Although I'm advocating a revitalized Republican party through the grassroots -- a grassroots force that may eventually fill the vacuum if the GOP implodes -- that does not mean I don't think you should never vote for an Independent or a Democrat.
I've always advocated that voters research all the candidates on the ballot, see which one comes closest to where you stand on the issues, and vote your conscience. Don't reward candidates with your precious vote just because they have an R or a D next to their name.
